RBI and Corporate governance

A third and an area of particular relevance to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) relates to corporate governance in the financial sector. Today, therefore, the major focus of this presentation would relate to corporate governance in the financial sector itself.

It is possible to broadly identify different sets of players in the corporate governance system. For convenience they can be identified as law which is the legal system; regulators; the Board of Directors and Executive Directors on the Board; financial intermediaries; markets; and self regulatory organisations. There is a dynamic balance among them that determines the prevailing corporate governance system, and the balance varies from country to country. In some countries, self-regulatory organisations are well established and in others, as you are aware, the financial intermediaries play a greater part. These balances vary from country to country and, vary depending upon the stage of institutional development and the historical context. Since financial intermediaries are important players in corporate governance in India, special focus on the corporate governance in the financial sector itself becomes critical.

Secondly, the RBI, as regulator relevant to financial sector, has responsibility on the nature of corporate governance in the financial sector. Therefore, we, in the RBI, have to see how corporate governance is evolving, particularly in the context of the financial sector reforms that are being undertaken.

Third, banks are special and to the extent banks have systemic implications, corporate governance in the banks is of critical importance to the RBI.

Fourth, which is not peculiar, but certainly one of the important features of the Indian system, is the dominance of the Government or the public sector ownership in financial sector, whether it is the banking system or development financial institutions. In a way, Government, as a sole or significant owner of commercial, competitive, corporate entities in the financial sector would also set the standards for corporate governance in private sector.

Fifth, relates to the reform process initiated since 1991-92. In the pre-reform period, most decisions were externally, i.e., external to the financial intermediary determined including interest rates to be paid or charged and whom to lend. But recently, there has been a movement away from micro regulation by the RBI. There is thus, a shift from external regulation to the internal systems and therefore, the quality of the corporate governance within the bank or financial institution becomes critical in the performance of the financial sector and indeed the growth of financial sector.

In this perspective of the significance of corporate governance in the financial sector in India, the rest of the presentation is divided into three parts.

The first relates to corporate governance in Government owned financial intermediaries, i.e., the nature of the corporate governance in the context of the Government ownership.

The second set relates to corporate governance and regulatory issues in financial sector, especially relevant to the Reserve Bank of India.

The third part identifies the areas that require attention, taking into account not only the ownership and regulatory aspects but also the total systemic requirements. The areas requiring attention are simply listed for further attention.

Importance of Corporate Governance Under Government Ownership

The evolving corporate governance system in Government owned banks and financial institutions is very critical in India for a number of reasons.

First, public ownership is dominant in our financial sector and it is likely to be dominant for quite sometime in future in India. So, it sets a benchmark for the practices of corporate governance.

Second, the whole concept of competition in banking will have to be viewed in the light of the government ownership. If the regulator is trying to encourage competition, such encouragement of competition is possible if the market players i.e., banks concerned, are willing to respond to the competitive impulses that the regulator is trying to induce. It is possible that the nature of corporate arrangements and nature of incentive framework in the public sector banks are such the regulatory initiatives will not get the desired response or results. Consequently, the regulator’s inclination or pressure to create an incentive framework for introducing competition would also be determined by the extent to which the corporate governance in public sector financial intermediaries is conducive and responsive.

A third factor is diversified ownership in many public sector financial intermediaries, both the banks and financial institutions. The government is no longer 100 per cent owner in all public sector organisations. In organisations where there has been some divestment, it owns directly or indirectly about 55 to 70 per cent. The existence of private shareholders implies that issues like enhancing shareholders value, protecting shareholders value and protecting shareholders rights become extremely important. Such a situation did not exist in most of the public sector and financial sector until a few years back. The issue is whether this transformation in ownership pattern of the financial system has been captured in changing the framework of corporate governance.

A fourth factor is that if the financial sector, in particular banking system, has to develop in a healthy manner there is need for additional funding of these institutions. More so, when the central bank is justifiably prescribing better prudential requirements and capital adequacy norms. If some additional capital has to be raised by these institutions, they should be able to convince the capital market and shareholders that it is worth investing their money in. In the interest of ensuring that the institutions have adequate capital and that they continue to grow, they should be in a position to put in place and assure the market that their system of corporate governance is such that they can be trusted with shareholders money. The issue, therefore, is how our public sector financial institutions have been performing in terms of enhancing shareholder values. This is extremely important from system point of view because, additional funding has to be provided either by the Government or by the private shareholder. Given the fiscal position, the Government cannot be expected to invest significant funds in recapitalising public sector financial organisations. In brief, Government as an owner has to appreciate the importance of enhancing shareholder value, to reduce the possible fiscal burden of funding of banking or financial institutions in future and so attention to corporate governance in public sector is relevant from overall fiscal point of view also – whether for additional investment by Government or for successful divestment of its holdings.

Fifth, there is the issue of mixing up of regulatory, sovereign and, ownership functions and at the same time ensuring a viable system of corporate governance. A reference has been made to this in the Narasimham Committee Report on Banking Sector Reforms (Narasimham Committee II) Banking Sector Reforms and more recently in the Discussion Paper on Harmonising the Role and Operations of Development Financial Institutions and Banks (Discussion Paper on Universal Banking), circulated by the Reserve Bank of India. For instance, as the Narasimham Committee (II) has highlighted, in the case of the State Bank of India, the RBI is both regulator and owner. Also, ownership and regulatory functions are mixed up in the case of the Industrial Development Bank of India.

Changing role of RBI in the financial Sector

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is the central bank for India. The RBI handles many functions, from handling monetary policy to issuing currency. India has reported some of the best gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates in the world. It is also known as one of the four most powerful emerging market countries, collectively part of BRIC nations, which include Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

Prior to liberalization RBI used to regulate and control the financial sector that includes financial institutions like commercial banks investment banks stock exchange operations and foreign exchange market. With the economic liberalization and financial sector reforms RBI needed to shift its role from a controller to facilitator of the financial sector. This implies that the financial organisations were free to make their own decisions on many matters without consulting the RBI. This opened up the gates of financial sectors for the private players. The main objective behind the financial reforms was to encourage private sector participation increase competition and allowing market forces to operate in the financial sector. Thus it can be said that before liberalization RBI was controlling the financial sector operations whereas in the post-liberalization period the financial sector operations were mostly based on the market forces.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have highlighted India in several reports showing its high rate of growth. In April 2019, the World Bank projected India’s GDP growth would expand by 7.5% in 2020.1 Also in April 2019, the IMF showed an expected GDP growth rate of 7.3% for 2019 and 7.5% for 2020.2 Both projections have India with the highest expected GDP growth in the world over the next two years.

As with all economies, the central bank plays a key role in managing and monitoring the monetary policies affecting both commercial and personal finance as well as the banking system. As GDP moves higher in the world rankings the RBI’s actions will become increasingly important.

In April 2019, the RBI made the monetary policy decision to lower its borrowing rate to 6%.3 The rate cut was the second for 2019 and is expected to help impact the borrowing rate across the credit market more substantially.4 Prior to April, credit rates in the country had remained relatively high, despite the central bank’s positioning, which has been limiting borrowing across the economy.

The central bank must also grapple with a slightly volatile inflation rate that is projected at 2.4% in 2019, 2.9% to 3% in the first half of 2020, and 3.5% to 3.8% in the second half of 2020.

The RBI also has control over certain decisions regarding the country’s currency. In 2016, it affected a demonetization of the currency, which removed Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 notes from circulation, mainly in an effort to stop illegal activities. Post analysis of this decision shows some wins and losses. The demonetization of the specified currencies caused cash shortages and chaos while also requiring extra spending from the RBI for printing more money.

Quantitative measures:

It refers to those measures of RBI in which affects the overall money supply in the economy. Various instruments of quantitative measures are:

  • Bank rate: it is the interest rate at which RBI provides long term loan to commercial banks. The present bank rate is 6.5%. It controls the money supply in long term lending through this instrument. When RBI increases bank rate the interest rate charged by commercial banks also increases. This, in turn, reduces demand for credit in the economy. The reverse happens when RBI reduces the bank rate.
  • Liquidity adjustment facility: it allows banks to adjust their daily liquidity mismatches. It includes a Repo and reverse repo operations.
  • Repo rate: Repo repurchase agreement rate is the interest rate at which the Reserve Bank provides short term loans to commercial banks against securities. At present, the repo rate is 6.25%.
  • Reverse repo rate: It is the opposite of Repo, in which banks lend money to RBI by purchasing government securities and earn interest on that amount. Presently the reverse repo rate is 6%.
  • Marginal Standing Facility (MSF): It was introduced in 2011-12 through which the commercial banks can borrow money from RBI by pledging government securities which are within the limits of the statutory liquidity ratio (SLR). Presently the Marginal Standing Facility rate is 6.5%.

Market stabilisation scheme (MSS): this instrument is used to absorb the surplus liquidity from the economy through the sale of short-dated government securities. The cash collected through this instrument is held in a separate account with the Reserve Bank. It was introduced in 2004. RBI had raised the ceiling of the market stabilisation scheme after demonetization in 2016.

Every Central Bank has to perform numerous promotional and development functions which vary from country to country. This is truer in a developing country like India where RBI has been performing the functions of the promoter of financial system along with several special functions and non-monetary functions.

  • Promotion of Banking habits and expansion of banking system: It performs several functions to promote banking habits among different sections of the society and promotes the territorial and functional expansion of banking system. For this purpose, RBI has set several Institutions such as Deposit and Insurance Corporation 1962, the agricultural refinance Corporation in 1963, the IDBI in 1964, the UTI in 1964, the Investment Corporation of India in 1972, the NABARD in 1982, and national housing Bank in 1988 etc.
  • Export promotion through refinance facility: RBI promotes export through the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) and EXIM Bank. It provides refinance facility for export credit given by the scheduled commercial banks. The interest rate charged for this purpose is comparatively lower. ECGC provides insurance on export receivables whereas EXIM banks provide long-term finance to project exporters etc.
  • Development of financial system: RBI promotes and encourages the development of Financial Institutions, financial markets and the financial instruments which is necessary for the faster economic development of the country. It encourages all the banking and non-banking financial institutions to maintain a sound and healthy financial system.
  • Support for Industrial finance: RBI supports industrial development and has taken several initiatives for its promotion. It has played an important role in the establishment of industrial finance institutions such as ICICI Limited, IDBI, SIDBI etc. It supports small scale industries by ensuring increased credit supply. Reserve Bank of India directed the commercial banks to provide adequate financial and technical assistance through specialised Small-Scale Industries (SSI) branches.
  • Support to the Cooperative sector: RBI supports the Cooperative sector by extending indirect finance to the state cooperative banks. It routes this finance mostly via the NABARD.
  • Support for the agricultural sector: RBI provides financial facilities to the agricultural sector through NABARD and regional rural banks. NABARD provides short term and long-term credit facilities to the agricultural sector. RBI provides indirect financial assistance to NABARD by providing large amount of money through General Line of Credit at lower rates.
  • Training provision to banking staff: RBI provides training to the staff of banking industry by setting up banker s training college at many places. Institutes like National Institute of Bank management (NIBM), Bank Staff College (BSC) etc. provide training to the Banking staff.
  • Data collection and publication of reports: RBI collects data about interest rates, inflation, deflation, savings, investment etc. which is very helpful for researchers and policymakers. It publishes data on different sectors of the economy through its Publication division. It publishes weekly reports, annual reports, reports on trend and progress of commercial bank etc.

Financial Sector Reforms Since Liberalization 1991

Before 1991, India’s financial sector was highly regulated, with the government maintaining tight control over interest rates, credit allocation, and foreign exchange transactions. However, the economic crisis of 1991, marked by a balance of payments problem and dwindling foreign exchange reserves, necessitated structural adjustments and economic reforms. To tackle these issues, the Indian government, under the guidance of then Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, initiated a series of liberalization measures that also extended to the financial sector.

Liberalization of the Financial Sector (1991-1997)

The initial phase of reforms focused on liberalizing the banking and financial markets, improving operational efficiency, and increasing competition in the sector. Some of the major reforms during this period:

  • Introduction of the Narasimham Committee Report (1991):

The committee, chaired by M. Narasimham, was set up to recommend measures to reform the financial system. Its report laid the groundwork for liberalizing the banking sector, reducing government control, and increasing the role of market forces.

  • Entry of Private Banks:

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) allowed the entry of private sector banks in 1993. This led to the establishment of institutions like HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, and others, which enhanced competition and led to improved banking services.

  • Capital Market Reforms:

The government introduced several reforms in the capital market to make it more transparent and efficient. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) was empowered to regulate and supervise the securities market, bringing in measures like dematerialization of shares, electronic trading, and stricter disclosure norms.

  • Privatization of Banks:

The government began reducing its stake in public sector banks, aiming for greater autonomy and improved performance. This was a move towards making public banks more competitive in the market.

  • Interest Rate Deregulation:

RBI allowed market forces to determine interest rates on loans and deposits, which was a significant departure from the previous regime of administered interest rates.

Institutional Reforms (1997-2004)

During the late 1990s and early 2000s, the focus of financial sector reforms shifted to strengthening financial institutions and improving regulatory mechanisms. Key reforms in this period:

  • Formation of the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC) in 2009:

To address the growing need for a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework, the FSLRC was formed to recommend measures to modernize India’s financial sector laws and provide a cohesive regulatory framework for banks, securities markets, insurance, and pensions.

  • Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs):

RBI and the government began focusing on improving the regulation of NBFCs to bring them in line with the banking sector and prevent any systemic risks associated with their operation.

  • Risk-based Supervision:

RBI shifted to a risk-based approach for supervising commercial banks, ensuring that they had sufficient capital buffers to absorb shocks and could weather financial instability. This approach was aimed at ensuring the health of the banking sector.

  • Public Sector Bank Reforms:

The government continued to reduce its stake in public sector banks. The emphasis was on improving governance, transparency, and accountability within these banks. A series of reforms were introduced to modernize operations, improve customer service, and introduce new banking technologies.

Modernization and Technology Adoption (2004-2014):

In the period following 2004, India’s financial sector reforms focused heavily on technology adoption, financial inclusion, and strengthening the regulatory framework. Key reforms are:

  • Introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in 2017:

Though the GST was not a part of the financial sector per se, it had a significant impact on the financial sector. The GST provided a single, unified tax regime, making the process of tax compliance more efficient and promoting a formal economy.

  • Financial Inclusion:

Efforts to bring the unbanked population into the formal financial system were accelerated. The government launched several financial inclusion schemes like Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY), which aimed to provide banking facilities to rural and remote areas.

  • Insurance Reforms:

The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) increased the foreign direct investment (FDI) cap in the insurance sector from 26% to 49%, allowing greater private and foreign sector participation. This helped in improving the insurance penetration and services in India.

  • Capital Market Reforms:

SEBI continued its efforts to streamline capital market operations, improve transparency, and protect investor interests. The introduction of new regulations for mutual funds, equity derivatives, and greater focus on corporate governance helped improve investor confidence.

  • Digital Banking and Payments:

The rise of mobile banking, UPI (Unified Payments Interface), and other fintech solutions revolutionized the Indian banking sector. This not only improved access to financial services but also helped streamline transactions, making them faster, cheaper, and more secure.

Recent Reforms and Current Developments (2014-Present)

In recent years, the Indian financial sector has seen several developments aimed at strengthening its resilience and making it more inclusive:

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC):

Enacted in 2016, the IBC aims to provide a time-bound process for the resolution of corporate insolvencies, enabling efficient recovery of defaulted loans and improving the health of the banking sector.

  • Financial Technology (FinTech) Revolution:

The integration of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and blockchain into the financial services sector has led to rapid innovation, particularly in areas like digital payments, lending, and investment management.

  • Banking Consolidation:

In 2019, the Indian government announced the merger of several public sector banks to create fewer but stronger and more competitive entities, aimed at improving efficiency and reducing operational costs.

  • Implementation of the GST and Demonetization:

While GST helped streamline taxation in the economy, demonetization (2016) sought to reduce the informal economy and increase digital transactions, driving financial sector growth.

Organization of Money Market, Defects, Dealers

Money market is a financial market that facilitates the trading of short-term financial instruments with high liquidity and maturities of one year or less. It serves as a platform for borrowers to meet short-term funding needs and for lenders to invest excess funds securely. Key participants include central banks, commercial banks, non-banking financial institutions, and primary dealers. Common instruments traded in the money market include treasury bills, commercial papers, certificates of deposit, and repurchase agreements. The money market plays a crucial role in ensuring liquidity and stability in the financial system.

Organization of Money Market:

Money market is a component of the financial system where short-term borrowing, lending, buying, and selling of financial instruments with maturities of one year or less take place. It plays a crucial role in ensuring liquidity in the economy by facilitating the transfer of short-term funds among financial institutions, businesses, and governments. The organization of the money market includes various institutions, instruments, and participants that interact to fulfill short-term funding needs.

1. Structure of the Money Market

The money market in India is well-organized and comprises two broad segments:

(a) Organized Sector

The organized sector is regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and includes formal institutions and instruments:

  • Reserve Bank of India (RBI):

The RBI is the central authority that regulates and monitors the money market, ensuring liquidity and stability. It conducts monetary policy operations, such as open market operations (OMO) and repo rate adjustments, to control the money supply.

  • Commercial Banks:

Commercial banks play a key role by lending and borrowing short-term funds. They participate actively in call money markets and interbank lending.

  • Development and Cooperative Banks:

These banks cater to specific sectors and also participate in the money market to manage their liquidity requirements.

  • Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs):

NBFCs participate in money market transactions to meet short-term financing needs.

  • Primary Dealers:

Authorized primary dealers help in the development of government securities and participate in short-term borrowing through treasury bills.

(b) Unorganized Sector

The unorganized sector includes informal financial entities such as moneylenders, indigenous bankers, and traders. Though this sector is not regulated by the RBI, it plays a significant role in providing short-term funds, especially in rural areas.

2. Instruments of the Money Market

Several financial instruments are used in the money market, including:

  • Treasury Bills (T-Bills):

Short-term government securities issued by the RBI on behalf of the government, typically with maturities of 91, 182, and 364 days.

  • Commercial Paper (CP):

Unsecured promissory notes issued by corporations to raise short-term funds.

  • Certificates of Deposit (CD):

Negotiable instruments issued by banks to raise short-term deposits from investors.

  • Call Money and Notice Money:

Call money refers to funds borrowed or lent for a very short period, usually one day. Notice money involves borrowing for 2 to 14 days.

  • Repo and Reverse Repo Agreements:

These are short-term borrowing agreements in which securities are sold and repurchased at a future date.

3. Participants in the Money Market

  • Commercial banks
  • Non-banking financial institutions
  • Primary dealers
  • Mutual funds
  • Insurance companies
  • Corporations

Defects of Money Market:

  • Lack of Integration

The money market in many developing countries lacks proper integration between its various components, such as the central bank, commercial banks, and non-banking financial institutions. This fragmentation reduces the market’s overall efficiency in meeting liquidity demands uniformly.

  • Limited Instruments

In well-developed money markets, a variety of financial instruments, such as treasury bills, commercial papers, and certificates of deposit, are actively traded. However, in underdeveloped markets, there is often a limited range of instruments, leading to reduced options for investors and borrowers.

  • Seasonal Fluctuations

A major defect in certain money markets is the occurrence of seasonal fluctuations in demand for funds. For instance, in agriculture-driven economies, the demand for short-term funds increases sharply during sowing and harvesting seasons, leading to interest rate volatility.

  • Ineffective Central Bank Control

The central bank is responsible for regulating and stabilizing the money market. In some economies, the central bank’s control mechanisms may not be well-developed or effectively enforced, resulting in unstable interest rates and liquidity imbalances.

  • Limited Participation by Institutions

A healthy money market requires active participation from a wide range of financial institutions, including commercial banks, non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), and mutual funds. In certain markets, institutional participation is low, which limits the depth and breadth of the market.

  • Underdeveloped Banking System

A weak or underdeveloped banking system can significantly hamper the functioning of the money market. In many countries, commercial banks may lack sufficient resources or the necessary infrastructure to actively participate in money market operations, leading to reduced liquidity.

  • High Transaction Costs

In some money markets, high transaction costs can deter participation by smaller institutions and investors. These costs can include regulatory fees, brokerage charges, and administrative expenses, making short-term borrowing and lending less attractive.

  • Lack of Transparency

Transparency is essential for the efficient functioning of the money market. In some economies, a lack of clear information about interest rates, market demand, and supply of funds can result in inefficient allocation of resources and increased risks for participants.

Dealers of Money Market:

  • Central Bank

The central bank, such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) or the Federal Reserve, plays a pivotal role in regulating and controlling money market operations. It acts as a lender of last resort, ensuring liquidity and stability in the market. The central bank also influences short-term interest rates through its monetary policy and open market operations.

  • Commercial Banks

Commercial banks are the most prominent dealers in the money market. They borrow and lend short-term funds to manage their liquidity requirements and meet the reserve requirements set by the central bank. They also trade in money market instruments such as treasury bills, certificates of deposit, and interbank loans.

  • Non-Banking Financial Institutions (NBFIs)

NBFIs, such as insurance companies, mutual funds, and pension funds, participate actively in the money market. Although they do not have a banking license, they provide short-term financing and liquidity to the market. Their participation enhances market depth and stability by diversifying the sources of funds.

  • Primary Dealers (PDs)

Primary dealers are specialized financial institutions appointed by the central bank to participate in the issuance and trading of government securities. Their primary role is to ensure the smooth functioning of the government securities market by underwriting and distributing new issues. PDs also provide liquidity to the secondary market by actively buying and selling government securities.

  • Cooperative Banks

Cooperative banks operate at regional and local levels, providing short-term credit to agricultural and rural sectors. They participate in the money market by borrowing funds to meet seasonal credit requirements and lending to small businesses and farmers.

  • Discount and Finance Houses

Discount and finance houses act as intermediaries in the money market by discounting short-term financial instruments, such as treasury bills, commercial papers, and bills of exchange. They enhance liquidity in the market by facilitating the conversion of securities into cash.

  • Corporations and Large Businesses

Large corporations participate in the money market to manage their short-term financing needs. They often issue commercial papers to raise funds at lower interest rates than bank loans. Corporations also invest surplus cash in money market instruments to earn interest on idle funds.

  • Brokers and Dealers

Brokers and dealers facilitate transactions between buyers and sellers in the money market. They act as intermediaries, matching parties for short-term lending and borrowing. Dealers, in particular, may also trade money market instruments on their own account to earn profits.

Need and Bases of Apportionment of Common Expenses

An apportionment is the separation of sales, expenditures, or income that are then distributed to different accounts, divisions, or subsidiaries. The term is used in particular for allocating profits to a company’s specific geographic areas, which affects the taxable income reported to various governments.

When all the items are collected properly under suitable account headings, the next step is allocation and apportionment of such expenses to cost centres. This is also known as departmentalisation of overhead. Departmentalisation of production overheads is the process of identifying production overhead expenses with different production/service departments or cost centres. It is done by means of allocation and apportionment of overheads among various departments.

For example, a multi-state entity’s overall revenue may be distributed to its state-level branches based on their individual revenues, headcount, asset base, or cash receipts.

An apportionment is the separation of sales, expenditures, or income that are then distributed to different accounts, divisions, or subsidiaries. The term is used in particular for allocating profits to a company’s specific geographic areas, which affects the taxable income reported to various governments.

For example, a multi-state entity’s overall revenue may be distributed to its state-level branches based on their individual revenues, headcount, asset base, or cash receipts.

Basis for Apportionment:

The basis used for apportionment of costs is the number of cost centres when the expenses are to be shared equitably between them. This happens when an overhead cannot be assigned directly to one specific cost centre.

Rent and business rates, for example, are sometimes paid by individual cost centres, and floor space is also used as a basis for apportionment to share costs between relevant cost centres.

The costs are proportionately assigned to different departments when the overhead belongs to various departments. In simple terms, the expenses which cannot be charged against a specific department are dispersed over multiple departments.

For example, the wages paid to the factory head, factory rent, electricity, etc. cannot be charged to a particular department, then these can be apportioned among several departments.

Following are the main bases of overhead apportionment utilised in manufacturing concerns:

(i) Direct Allocation

Overheads are directly allocated to various departments on the basis of expenses for each department respectively. Examples are: overtime premium of workers engaged in a particular department, power (when separate meters are available), jobbing repairs etc.

(ii) Direct Labour/Machine Hours

Under this basis, the overhead expenses are distributed to various departments in the ratio of total number of labour or machine hours worked in each department. Majority of general overhead items are apportioned on this basis.

(iii) Value of Materials Passing through Cost Centres

This basis is adopted for expenses associated with material such as material handling expenses.

(iv) Direct Wages

According to this basis, expenses are distributed amongst the departments in the ratio of direct wages bills of the various departments. This method is used only for those items of expenses which are booked with the amounts of wages, e.g., workers’ insurance, their contribution to provident fund, workers’ compensation etc.

(v) Number of Workers

The total number of workers working in each department is taken as a basis for apportioning overhead expenses amongst departments. Where the expenditure depends more on the number of employees than on wages bill or number of labour hours, this method is used. This method is used for the apportionment of certain expenses as welfare and recreation expenses, medical expenses, time keeping, supervision etc.

(vi) Floor Area of Departments

This basis is adopted for the apportionment of certain expenses like lighting and heating, rent, rates, taxes, maintenance on building, air conditioning, fire precaution services etc.

(vii) Capital Values

In this method, the capital values of certain assets like machinery and building are used as basis for the apportionment of certain expenses.

Examples are:

Rates, taxes, depreciation, maintenance, insurance charges of the building etc.

(viii) Light Points

This is used for apportioning lighting expenses.

(ix) Kilowatt Hours

This basis is used for the apportionment of power expenses.

(x) Technical Estimates

This basis of apportionment is used for the apportionment of those expenses for which it is difficult, to find out any other basis of apportionment. An assessment of the equitable proportion is carried out by technical experts. This is used for distributing lighting, electric power, works manager’s salary, internal transport, steam, water charges etc. when these are used for processes.

Principles of Apportionment of Overhead Costs:

The determination of a suitable basis is of primary importance and the following principles are useful guides to a cost accountant:

(i) Service or Use or Benefit Derived

If the service rendered by a particular item of expense to different departments can be measured, overhead can be conveniently apportioned on this basis. Thus, the cost of maintenance may be apportioned to different departments on the basis of machine hours or capital value of the machines, rent charges to be distributed according to the floor space occupied by each department.

(ii) Ability to Pay Method

Under this method, overhead should be distributed in proportion to the sales ability, income or profitability of the departments, territories, basis of products etc. Thus, jobs or products making higher profits take a higher share of the overhead expenses. This method is inequitable and is not generally advisable to relieve inefficient units at the cost of efficient units.

(iii) Efficiency Method

Under this method, the apportionment of expenses is made on the basis of production targets. If the target is exceeded, the unit cost reduces indicating a more than average efficiency. If the target is not achieved, the unit cost goes up, disclosing thereby the inefficiency of the department.

(iv) Survey Method

In certain cases it may not be possible to measure exactly the extent of benefit wick the various departments receive as this may vary from period to period, a survey is made of the various factors involved and the share of overhead costs to be borne by each cost centre is determined.

Thus, the salaries of foreman serving two departments can be apportioned after a proper survey which may reveal that 30% of such salary should be apportioned to one department and 70% to the other department. The cost of lighting, when not metered, may similarly be apportioned on a survey of the number and wattage of light points and the hours of use in each cost centre.

Principles of apportionment of overhead expenses:

The guidelines or principles which facilitate in determining a suitable basis for apportionment of overheads are explained below:

  • Derived Benefit

According to this principle, the apportionment of common items of overheads should be based on the actual benefit received by the respective cost centers. This method is applicable when the actual benefits are measurable. e.g., rent can be apportioned on the basis of the floor area occupied by each department.

  • Potential Benefit

According to this principle, the apportionment of the common item of overheads should be based on potential benefits (i.e., benefits likely to be received). When the measurement of actual benefit is difficult or impossible or uneconomical this method is adopted. e.g., the cost of canteen can be apportioned on the basis of the number of employees in each department which is a potential benefit.

  • Ability to Pay

According to this principle, overheads should be apportioned on the basis of the saleability or income generating ability of respective departments. In other words, the departments which contribute more towards profit should get a higher proportion of overheads.

  • Efficiency Method

According to this principle, the apportionment of overheads is made on the basis of the production targets. If the target is higher, the unit cost reduces indicating higher efficiency. If the target is not achieved the unit cost goes up indicating inefficiency of the department.

  • Specific Criteria Method

According to this principle, apportionment of overhead expenses is made on the basis of specific criteria determined in a survey. Hence this method is also known as “Survey method”. When it is difficult to select a suitable basis in other methods, this method is adopted. e.g., while apportioning salary of the foreman, a careful survey is made to know how much time and attention is given by him to different departments. On the basis of the above survey, the apportionment is made.

Inter Departmental Transfers at Cost Price

In organizations with multiple departments, goods and services are often transferred internally from one department to another. This is known as inter-departmental transfer. For example, in a textile company, the spinning department may transfer yarn to the weaving department, or in a retail business, the warehouse may transfer goods to sales departments. These transfers must be recorded properly to ensure accurate departmental accounts and correct profit calculation.

Inter-departmental transfers can happen at either cost price or selling price. When transfers occur at cost price, the transferring department records the value of the goods or services at the original cost it incurred, without adding any profit or markup. This method focuses purely on recovering the expense involved, making it simple and transparent. Recording at cost price ensures that no unrealized profits inflate the departmental accounts, helping management track true profitability.

Proper accounting treatment of inter-departmental transfers at cost price is essential to avoid overstatement or understatement of departmental profits, ensure fair performance evaluation, and maintain accurate consolidated accounts. Let’s explore the meaning, accounting treatment, significance, advantages, and limitations of inter-departmental transfers at cost price in detail

Inter-departmental transfers at cost price refer to the transfer of goods or services between departments within the same organization, where the transfer value is recorded at the actual cost incurred by the supplying department, without adding any profit margin.

For example, if the production department produces a product at ₹100 per unit and transfers it to the sales department, the entry is made at ₹100 per unit. No profit or loading is included in the transfer value.

Purposes of inter-departmental transfers at cost price:

The main purposes of inter-departmental transfers at cost price are:

  • To avoid artificial profits: Since no sale to an external party has occurred, no real profit has been realized. Recording the transfer at cost avoids inflating profits on paper.
  • To ensure fair departmental performance evaluation: By using cost price, each department’s results reflect their true operational performance without distortion from internal markups.
  • To maintain simplicity and transparency in accounts: Recording at cost simplifies bookkeeping and avoids complications arising from loading and adjustments.
  • To prepare accurate combined financial statements: The organization as a whole should not report profit on internal transfers, only on external sales.

Advantages of Inter-Departmental Transfers at Cost Price:

  • Simplicity in Accounting

One of the biggest advantages of inter-departmental transfers at cost price is the simplicity it brings to accounting records. Since the transfers are made without adding any profit or markup, there is no need to calculate or track loading adjustments or unrealized profits. This straightforward approach reduces the complexity of journal entries and ledger postings, making it easier for the accounting staff to maintain records. It also minimizes the chances of clerical errors, simplifying reconciliation between departments. As a result, the overall administrative burden is reduced, and the accounting process becomes more efficient and clear.

  • Avoidance of Unrealized Profits

Inter-departmental transfers at cost price ensure that profits are only recorded when they are actually realized, i.e., when goods or services are sold to external customers. This avoids inflating departmental profits artificially due to internal transfers. If transfers were made at selling price or with added profit, the supplying department’s profit would include internal, unrealized margins, which need to be adjusted later. By using cost price, the organization prevents overstatement of profits and maintains the integrity of financial statements. This promotes a realistic view of business performance, both at departmental and overall levels.

  • Fair Performance Evaluation

Recording inter-departmental transfers at cost price allows for fair and unbiased evaluation of each department’s performance. Departments are assessed based on their operational efficiency and cost management rather than the profit generated through internal transfers. This ensures that the receiving department is not unfairly burdened by internal markups and the supplying department is not artificially credited with profits not yet realized externally. By focusing on true operational results, management can identify which departments are performing well and which need improvement, allowing for accurate assessments and informed performance reviews across the organization.

  • Accurate Stock Valuation

When goods are transferred between departments at cost price, the value recorded in the receiving department’s stock is the actual cost, not an inflated figure with internal profit. This ensures that the closing stock is correctly valued in the departmental accounts. Accurate stock valuation is essential because it directly affects the calculation of departmental profits. If transfers were recorded at selling price, adjustments would be necessary to remove unrealized profit from the closing stock. Using cost price eliminates the need for such adjustments, simplifying the preparation of financial statements and ensuring accuracy.

  • Transparency Across Departments

Cost-based inter-departmental transfers promote transparency between departments by showing the true cost of resources and avoiding artificial internal profits. This fosters trust and cooperation between departments, as there is no perception of one department profiting at the expense of another. Transparency ensures that departments work collaboratively toward organizational goals rather than focusing on maximizing internal profits. It also provides clear visibility into cost flows, helping managers understand how resources move through the organization. This openness supports better decision-making and encourages a healthy organizational culture focused on efficiency and teamwork.

  • Easier Consolidation of Accounts

When departments transfer goods or services at cost price, the organization’s consolidated financial statements are easier to prepare. Since there are no internal profits included in departmental figures, there is no need to make complicated adjustments to eliminate unrealized profits during consolidation. This saves time and reduces the risk of errors in the final accounts. Easier consolidation improves the efficiency of the finance team, ensures compliance with accounting standards, and provides stakeholders with an accurate picture of the organization’s overall financial performance without distortions from internal transactions.

  • Supports Better Decision-Making

Recording inter-departmental transfers at cost price gives management access to clear, undistorted cost data. This helps in making informed decisions related to budgeting, pricing, cost control, and resource allocation. Managers can identify high-cost areas and explore opportunities to improve efficiency. Accurate cost data also enables better analysis of profitability, helping the organization decide whether to continue, expand, or restructure certain departments. Without the noise of internal profit margins, the management has a clearer understanding of the cost structure, allowing for strategic decisions that align with overall business objectives.

  • Reduces Internal Conflicts

Using cost price for inter-departmental transfers minimizes potential conflicts between departments. When goods or services are transferred without profit, no department feels overcharged or undervalued. This reduces disputes over pricing and performance, promoting harmony and cooperation. In contrast, transfer pricing with added profit can lead to disagreements, with supplying departments seeking higher prices and receiving departments feeling burdened. By standardizing transfers at cost, the organization creates a fair environment where departments focus on collective success rather than internal competition, leading to smoother operations and better overall morale.

Disadvantages of Inter-Departmental Transfers at Cost Price:

  • Understatement of Supplying Department’s Performance

When inter-departmental transfers are recorded at cost price, the supplying department’s performance may appear weaker because it does not reflect any internal profit. This can demotivate managers and staff in the supplying department, as their efforts to create value and efficiency may not be visible in their financial results. Even though they deliver high-quality goods or services, the lack of profit recognition in internal transfers means their contributions are undervalued. This underreporting may lead to less recognition, fewer incentives, and an inaccurate picture of the department’s actual capabilities and strengths.

  • Lack of Profit Accountability

By not including profit margins in inter-departmental transfers, departments may lose sight of profitability and become less disciplined in their operations. Without accountability for generating profits on internal transactions, departments may focus only on covering costs instead of seeking efficiency improvements or maximizing value. This can lead to complacency, as departments are not incentivized to work as profit centers. Over time, this mindset can reduce overall competitiveness and innovation within the organization, making it harder for management to push departments to operate at peak performance levels.

  • Difficulty in Assessing True Profit Potential

Transfers at cost price prevent management from seeing the potential profit margins that departments could generate if they operated independently or sold externally. This makes it challenging to evaluate the real commercial value or competitive strength of individual departments. Without internal pricing reflecting market-based values, the company misses opportunities to benchmark internal departments against external standards. This limits insights into whether departments are underpriced, overpriced, or underperforming relative to market potential, making strategic decisions about outsourcing, expansion, or restructuring more difficult for senior management.

  • Inefficiency in Cost Recovery

Transferring at cost price may sometimes result in incomplete recovery of certain indirect or hidden costs. Overheads like administrative charges, storage expenses, or depreciation might not be fully reflected when only direct cost is used. This creates gaps in cost recovery, leading to underfunded departments or inaccurate departmental budgets. Without considering a fair share of fixed and indirect costs, the supplying department may not break even, placing financial strain on specific units. Over time, these gaps can create inefficiencies across the organization and lead to distorted internal cost structures.

  • Absence of Competitive Pricing Pressure

When departments transfer goods or services internally at cost, they face no competitive pressure to price competitively or improve offerings. Without internal markups or profit accountability, departments may lack motivation to optimize operations, control costs, or innovate. If they know their output will automatically be accepted by the receiving department at cost, they may neglect quality improvements or efficiency efforts. This can create a sluggish internal system where departments operate in silos, missing out on the opportunity to simulate external market competition and foster a dynamic, performance-driven internal environment.

  • Misalignment with Market Realities

Cost-based transfers may misalign internal accounting with external market realities. While external sales must include profit margins to sustain the business, internal transfers at cost price ignore these commercial dynamics. As a result, the organization’s internal pricing and decision-making may become disconnected from real-world conditions, causing misjudgments in product costing, pricing strategies, and resource allocation. This misalignment can have strategic consequences, especially if the organization assumes departments are operating profitably based on cost figures, without fully considering what actual market conditions would demand.

  • Complex Managerial Control

Although cost price transfers simplify accounting, they complicate managerial control because profit responsibility is blurred. Without profit recognition in internal transfers, managers may struggle to track whether departmental outputs are contributing positively to the company’s bottom line. This makes it harder for management to set clear performance targets or measure departmental effectiveness beyond basic cost control. It can also make incentive structures more difficult to design, as linking rewards or bonuses to cost-only metrics may not adequately reflect the true value or efficiency of a department’s work.

  • Limited Financial Motivation

Inter-departmental transfers at cost reduce the financial motivation for departments to seek improvements or efficiencies, since no profit is recognized from internal operations. Supplying departments may see little reason to control costs aggressively, negotiate better supply terms, or invest in process improvements if the only focus is on breaking even. Similarly, receiving departments may not challenge the cost structures or push for more efficient internal sourcing. This lack of internal financial motivation can result in stagnation, where departments operate at status quo levels without striving for continuous improvement or innovation.

  • Transfer from One Department to another Department at Cost Price, i.e., Cost Based Transfer Price:

Under the circumstance, the supplying department should be credited at–cost and the receiving department should be debited at cost, i.e., by the same amount. The so-called cost price may be considered as actual cost or standard cost or marginal cost and, accordingly, transfer price is based on any of the above methods.

  • Transfer from One Department to another Department at Invoice Price/Provision for Un-realised Profit Market Based Transfer Price:

In this case, the Departmental Trading Account of the receiving department is debited and the issuing one credited. Now, if the entire goods of the receiving department is sold within the year, practically no problem arises since notional profit materializes into actuality. But problem arises in the cases where there is unsold stock (i.e., if the entire goods are not disposed off).

In this case, appropriate adjustment for the unsold stock is to be made in order to ascertain the correct profit or loss since the notional profit remains un-realised. (The method of calculation for provision of un-realised profit is simple in the case of a trading concern but the same is very complicated in the case of a manufacturing concern particularly when the latter is engaged in various continuous processes.)

Therefore, provision for both opening and closing stock is to be made. The former is credited and the latter is debited in Consolidated Profit and Loss Account. Alternatively, the net effect can be given to Consolidated Profit and Loss Account.

(i) For Opening Stock Reserve:

Opening Stock Reserve, A/c Dr.

To, General Price

(ii) For Closing Stock Reserve:

General P & L A/c Dr.

Arbitrage Techniques

Arbitrage involves simultaneously buying and selling a security at two different prices in two different markets, with the aim of making a profit without the risk of prices fluctuating.

Arbitrage strategies arise simply because of the way the markets are built. There are inefficiencies in the market owing to lack of information and costs of transaction that ensure that an asset’s fair or true price is not always reflected. Arbitrage makes use of this inefficiency and ensures that a trader gains from a pricing difference.

Depending on the markets involved, there are different arbitrage strategies. There are strategies that relate to the options market and there are specific arbitrage strategies that refer to the futures market. There are also strategies for the forex markets and even retail segments.

Arbitrage in Finance

Arbitrage is the process of simultaneously buying and selling a financial instrument on different markets, in order to make a profit from an imbalance in price.

An arbitrageur would look for differences in price of the same financial instruments in different markets, buy the instrument on the market with the lower price, and simultaneously sell it on the other market which bids a higher price for the traded instrument.

Since arbitrage is a completely risk-free investment strategy, any imbalances in price are usually short-lived as they are quickly discovered by powerful computers and trading algorithms.

Types of Arbitrage

While arbitrage usually refers to trading opportunities in financial markets, there are also other types of arbitrage opportunities covering other tradeable markets. Those include risk arbitrage, retail arbitrage, convertible arbitrage, negative arbitrage and statistical arbitrage.

Risk arbitrage: This type of arbitrage is also called merger arbitrage, as it involves the buying of stocks in the process of a merger & acquisition. Risk arbitrage is a popular strategy among hedge funds, which buy the target’s stocks and short-sell the stocks of the acquirer.

Retail arbitrage: Just like on financial markets, arbitrage can also be performed with usual retail products from your favourite supermarket. Take a look at eBay for example, and you’ll find hundreds of products bought in China and sold online at a higher price on a different market.

Convertible arbitrage: Another popular arbitrage strategy, convertible arbitrage involves buying a convertible security and short-selling its underlying stock.

Negative arbitrage: Negative arbitrage refers to the opportunity lost when the interest rate that a borrower pays on its debt (a bond issuer, for example) is higher than the interest rate at which those funds are invested.

Statistical arbitrage: Also known as stat arb, is an arbitrage technique that involves complex statistical models to find trading opportunities among financial instruments with different market prices. Those models are usually based on mean-reverting strategies and require significant computational power.

Arbitrage trading tips

  • If you are interested in exchange to exchange trading, it would involve buying in one exchange and selling in another. You can take it up if you already have stocks in your demat account. You would need to remember that the price difference of a few rupees in the two exchanges is not always an opportunity for arbitrage. You will have to look at the bid price and offer price in the exchanges, and track which one is higher. The price that people are offering shares for is called the offer price, which the bid is the price at which they are willing to buy.
  • In the share market, there are transaction costs which may often be high and neutralise any sort of gains made by an arbitrage, so it is important to keep an eye on these costs.
  • If you are looking at arbitrage where futures are involved, you would have to look at the price difference of a stock or commodity between the cash or spot market and the futures contract, as already mentioned. In the time of increased volatility in the market, prices in the spot market can widely vary from the future price, and this difference is called basis. The greater the basis, the greater the opportunity for trading.
  • Traders tend to keep an eye on cost of carry or CoC, which is the cost they incur for holding a specific position in the market till the expiration of the futures contract. In the commodities market, the CoC is the cost of holding an seet in its physical form. The CoC is negative when the futures are trading at a discount to the price of the asset underlying in the cash market. This happens when there is a reverse cash and carry arbitrage trading strategy at play.
  • You can employ buyback arbitrage when a company announces buyback of its shares, and price differences may occur between the trade price and the price of buyback.
  • When a company announces any merger, there could be an arbitrage opportunity because of the price difference in the cash and the derivatives markets.

Arbitrage Theory

Arbitrage pricing theory (APT) is a multi-factor asset pricing model based on the idea that an asset’s returns can be predicted using the linear relationship between the asset’s expected return and a number of macroeconomic variables that capture systematic risk. It is a useful tool for analyzing portfolios from a value investing perspective, in order to identify securities that may be temporarily mispriced.

In finance, arbitrage pricing theory (APT) is a general theory of asset pricing that holds that the expected return of a financial asset can be modeled as a linear function of various factors or theoretical market indices, where sensitivity to changes in each factor is represented by a factor-specific beta coefficient. The model-derived rate of return will then be used to price the asset correctly the asset price should equal the expected end of period price discounted at the rate implied by the model. If the price diverges, arbitrage should bring it back into line. The theory was proposed by the economist Stephen Ross in 1976. The linear factor model structure of the APT is used as the basis for many of the commercial risk systems employed by asset managers.

Assumptions in the Arbitrage Pricing Theory

The Arbitrage Pricing Theory operates with a pricing model that factors in many sources of risk and uncertainty. Unlike the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), which only takes into account the single factor of the risk level of the overall market, the APT model looks at several macroeconomic factors that, according to the theory, determine the risk and return of the specific asset.

These factors provide risk premiums for investors to consider because the factors carry systematic risk that cannot be eliminated by diversifying.

The APT suggests that investors will diversify their portfolios, but that they will also choose their own individual profile of risk and returns based on the premiums and sensitivity of the macroeconomic risk factors. Risk-taking investors will exploit the differences in expected and real returns on the asset by using arbitrage.

The arbitrage pricing theory was developed by the economist Stephen Ross in 1976, as an alternative to the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Unlike the CAPM, which assume markets are perfectly efficient, APT assumes markets sometimes misprice securities, before the market eventually corrects and securities move back to fair value. Using APT, arbitrageurs hope to take advantage of any deviations from fair market value.

However, this is not a risk-free operation in the classic sense of arbitrage, because investors are assuming that the model is correct and making directional trades rather than locking in risk-free profits.

Arbitrage in the APT

The APT suggests that the returns on assets follow a linear pattern. An investor can leverage deviations in returns from the linear pattern using the arbitrage strategy. Arbitrage is the practice of the simultaneous purchase and sale of an asset on different exchanges, taking advantage of slight pricing discrepancies to lock in a risk-free profit for the trade.

However, the APT’s concept of arbitrage is different from the classic meaning of the term. In the APT, arbitrage is not a risk-free operation – but it does offer a high probability of success. What the arbitrage pricing theory offers traders is a model for determining the theoretical fair market value of an asset. Having determined that value, traders then look for slight deviations from the fair market price, and trade accordingly.

Arbitrage Pricing Theory

The Formula for the Arbitrage Pricing Theory Model Is       

E(R)I =E(R)z+(E(I)−E(R)z) ×βn     

where:

E(R)I =Expected return on the asset

Rz=Risk-free rate of return

βn=Sensitivity of the asset price to macroeconomic

factor n

Ei=Risk premium associated with factor i

Indian Financial System

Unit 1 Introduction to Financial System in India
Overview of Financial System VIEW
Structure, Function of financial Market VIEW
Regulation of financial Market VIEW VIEW
Financial Assets/ Financial Instruments VIEW
Financial Market VIEW
Structure of financial Market VIEW
Interlink between Capital market and Money market VIEW
Capital Market VIEW
Money Market VIEW
Classification of Financial System VIEW
Key elements of well-functioning of Financial system VIEW
Economic indicators of financial development VIEW
Functions and Significance of Primary Market VIEW
Functions and Significance of Secondary Market VIEW
Unit 2 Banking Institutions
Commercial Banks VIEW
Types of Banks Public, Private and foreign Banks, Payments Bank, Small Finance Banks VIEW
Cooperative Banking System VIEW
RRBs VIEW
Regulatory environment of Commercial Banking VIEW
Operational aspects of commercial Banking VIEW
Investment Policy of Commercial Banks VIEW
*Narasimaham Committee Report on Banking Sector Reforms VIEW
Unit 3 Financial Institutions AND NBFCs
Financial institutions: Meaning definitions and Features VIEW
Objective composition and functions of All India Financial Institutions (AIFI’s) VIEW
IFC VIEW
SIDBI VIEW
NABARD VIEW
EXIM Bank VIEW
NHB VIEW
Nonbanking finance companies: Meaning, Definition, Characteristics, functions. Types VIEW
Difference between a Bank and a Financial institution VIEW
Extra Topics
Types of Banking VIEW
Non-Banking Financial Institutions VIEW
Objectives & Functions of IDBI VIEW
Objectives & Functions of SFCs VIEW
Objectives & Functions of SIDCs VIEW
Objectives & Functions of LIC VIEW
Unit 4 Financial Services
Financial Services: Meaning, definition, Characteristics VIEW
Financial Services Types and Importance VIEW
Types of Fund Based Services and Fee Based Services VIEW
Factoring Services: Meaning, Types of factoring agreement VIEW
Forfaiting VIEW
Lease Financing in India VIEW
Venture Capital: Meaning, Stages of investment, Types VIEW
Angel Investment: Meaning, features and importance VIEW
Recent trends of Angel Investment in India VIEW
Crowd Funding Meaning, Types VIEW
Mutual funds Meaning and Types VIEW VIEW
Unit 5 Global Financial Systems
US Federal system Components, entities and functions VIEW
European Financial System VIEW
EU25 features and Functions VIEW
International Monetary System VIEW
International Stock market VIEW
International foreign exchange market VIEW
International derivative markets Meaning and functions VIEW
Currency crises VIEW
Current account deficit crises VIEW
Recent Trends in Global Financial Systems VIEW
Information highways in financial services VIEW

Financial Management

Unit 1 Introduction Financial Management
Meaning of Finance VIEW
Business Finance VIEW
Finance Function, Aims of Finance Function VIEW
Organization Structure of Finance Department VIEW
Financial Management VIEW
Goals of Financial Management VIEW VIEW
Financial Decisions VIEW
Role of a Financial Manager VIEW
Financial Planning VIEW
Steps in Financial Planning VIEW
Principles of Sound/Good Financial Planning VIEW
Factors influencing a sound financial plan VIEW
Unit 2 Time Value of Money
Time Value of Money: Introduction, Meaning & Definition, Need VIEW
Future Value (Single Flow, Uneven Flow & Annuity) VIEW
Present Value (Single Flow, Uneven Flow & Annuity) VIEW
Doubling Period VIEW
Concept of Valuation:
Valuation of Bonds/ Debentures VIEW VIEW
Valuation of Shares VIEW
Factor affecting Valuation of Shares VIEW
Various Method VIEW VIEW VIEW
Unit 3 Financing Decision
Capital Structure: Meaning, Introduction VIEW
Factors influencing Capital Structure VIEW
Optimum Capital Structure VIEW
Computation & Analysis of EBIT, EBT, EPS VIEW
Leverages VIEW
Unit 4 Investment & Dividend Decision
Investment Decision: Introduction Meaning VIEW
Capital Budgeting Features, Significance, Process VIEW
Capital Budgeting Techniques: VIEW
Payback Period VIEW
Accounting Rate of Return VIEW
Net Present Value VIEW
Internal Rate of Return VIEW
Profitability index VIEW
Dividend Decision: Introduction, Meaning and Definition, Types VIEW
Determinants of Dividend Policy VIEW
Bonus Share VIEW
Unit 5 Working Capital Management
Working Capital Management VIEW
Concept of Working Capital VIEW
Significance of Adequate Working Capital VIEW
Evils of Excess or Inadequate Working Capital VIEW
Determinants of Working Capital VIEW
Sources of Working Capital VIEW

 

error: Content is protected !!